About TLB

Philip Jessup proposed the idea of a transnational law course. His vision of the subject was broad, including public and private international law; state and non-state actors; business, administrative, and political affairs; as well as negotiation and litigation. Inspired by his idea, TLB is only constrained by its pursuit to address all law transcending national frontiers.

May 13, 2008

As I am coming out of finals, graduating from law school, and staring the Bar exam dead in the eye, I am fascinated by this article on Res Communis about the first law student to graduate with a specialty in space law. It should come as no surprise that I'm planning a career in transnational law but I take my hat off to anyone that is planning a career in space law-- that is just too international and out-of-this-world cool! I'll admit it, I'm jealous!

The University of Mississippi Law School is the only ABA-accredited law school in the nation with a program specializing in space law. This spring law student Michael Dodge will be the first law student in the history of U.S. jurisprudence to graduate with this unique distinction. Requirements to earn the certificate include courses on U.S. space and aviation law, international space and aviation law, and remote sensing; as well as participation in the publication of the Journal of Space Law and independent research.

Law Dean Samuel M. Davis said, "We are particularly proud to be offering these space law certificates for the first time, since ours is the only program of its kind in the U.S. and only one of two in North America."

According to the article, Dodge said his interest in space law stems from a fascination with space exploration that began when he was a young child, so when he started law school, his interest in space was based mostly on science and history.

"Once I came to the law school, I read that there was an attorney here that specialized in space law," he said. "After that, I became curious as to why space needed regulation, and how legal regimes could be constructed to govern such an expanse. After meeting Professor (Joanne) Gabrynowicz, my curiosity only grew, and ever since, I have been dedicated to researching legal issues associated with humankind’s utilization of space."

While most major law schools are just recently overhauling their programs to focus on transnational law (or what they call "international" law), Ole Miss is taking the lead on what I'm sure will prove to be a very important field of law in the very near future.

February 28, 2008

The US Navy successfully hit a malfunctioning spy satellite with an SM-3 missile on February 20. The US government said that it was necessary to destroy the satellite in orbit to prevent a highly toxic chemical, hydrazine, contained within the satellite, from falling back to Earth. An article from MSNBC, dispelling 5 myths about the downing of the satellite, said the following about the toxic chemicals:

Space officials were so concerned about the satellite's full tank of hydrazine fuel because they believed it had frozen solid, due to the low temperatures aboard the spacecraft. They feared that the titanium-shielded "toxic iceberg" would survive intact all the way to the ground and disperse around the crash site, not in the upper atmosphere. Safety officials had never been faced with this type of falling material before.

According to international law, the US would be liable for any damage that resulted from the satellite falling back to Earth. For all things space law related, I have been turning to the Res Communis blog. It consistently has the scoop on what's happening in aerospace and outer space in both politics and business. They have an excellent post listing the space law that is relevant to the satellite incident. One of the conventions found within this particular litany of space law concerns compensation and liability:

Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (Liability Convention), Art. VIII (1): “A State which suffers damage, or whose natural or juridical persons suffer damage, may present to a launching State a claim for compensation for such damage.”

The House of Representatives expresses sincere congratulations to the Department of Defense, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, the Department of the Navy, and the crews of the USS Lake Erie, the USS Decatur, and the USS Russell, for successfully intercepting the disabled National Reconnaissance Office satellite, NROL-21, on February 20, 2008; and

It is the sense of the House of Representatives that this accomplishment safeguarded United States citizens and inhabitants around the world from potential harm.

Security analysts have suggested that Beijing could use the planned U.S. interception to justify the Chinese military's unannounced destruction of a defunct weather satellite in January 2007.

That interception drew criticism from senior U.S. military officials, who complained that it had left a cloud of debris that was dangerous to other space traffic. Chinese experts in turn have questioned the Pentagon's explanation that it wanted to down the spy satellite to avoid contamination from hazardous fuel on board.

"In my opinion, this decision is imprudent and ill advised," said Li Bin, an arms control specialist at Tsinghua University in Beijing. "If this satellite is shot down, the toxic fuel will still be there. Therefore, the pollution still exists."

But, Li said, destroying the satellite would be an effective way to prevent sensitive technology from falling into the wrong hands.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Liu Jianchao, said the Chinese government was highly concerned about the U.S. plan, Xinhua, the state-run news agency, reported late Sunday, noting that the target satellite was loaded with toxic fuel.

Liu also urged Washington to fulfill its international obligations and avoid threatening security in space and the security of other countries, Xinhua quoted him as saying, without elaborating.

"Relevant departments of China are closely watching the situation and working out preventative measures," Liu said.

Just days after China and Russia renewed their call for a global ban on space weapons at a disarmament conference, the United States announced late last week that it was preparing to fire a missile at the crippled reconnaissance satellite during one of its passes over the Pacific by the middle of next week.

The United States opposes treaties or other measures to restrict space weapons.

It doesn't matter whether the US downed the satellite to show China that it also has the right stuff or to prevent any liability for damages that might come as a result of the satellite dropping toxic chemicals on people as it returned to the Earth. What is obvious is that China and the US are engaged in a new space race (see the CDT article entitled, The New Space Race: China vs. US), which means plenty of business in the future for space law attorneys.

February 20, 2008

The US is going to shoot down a broken satellite that is supposedly falling back to the Earth. There is speculation that this display is a response to China's destruction of a weather satellite last January (see here), and others argue that this is a legitimate move by the Pentagon to avoid liability for any damage that might come from the 5,000 pound satellite breaking apart during reentry, which will spread its debris and toxic payload over several hundred miles (see here).

The satellite could be shot down as early as this evening. A report from the Belfast Telegraph says that the USS Lake Erie is moving into position to fire an SM-3 missile at the satellite as it passes over Ireland. The Belfast Telegraph also mentions at the end of the article that the Russian government has criticized the decision to shoot down the satellite.

The Russian government said, "The decision to destroy the American satellite does not look harmless as they try to claim, especially at a time when the US has been evading negotiations on the limitation of an arms race in outer space."

January 13, 2008

The Wired Blogs recently published a series of posts entitled, How China Loses The Coming Space War, which are written by MIT researcher Geoffrey Forden, Ph.D., examining the possibility of an all-out Chinese assault on American satellites (h/t Wendy Jackson). A year ago China performed a successful anti-satellite test,
shooting down one of its own obsolete weather satellites, putting into
overdrive widespread speculation about a possible outer space war with
China. In a previous post
we joined in this speculation, discussing the new space race and China's use of anti-technology
technology as a means to defeat the USA in an armed conflict. Forden obviously believes that the USA would ultimately win an outer space contest with China. His arguments are quite compelling and worth reading in their entirety.

In Part One of the series, Forden opens up with a fictional account of how China's space war against the US could begin:

High above Asia, as the bars and clubs of Beijing begin to fill up at the end of another work day, a US early warning satellite spots the tell-tale plume of a missile streaking out of the wastes of Western China. Warning bells sound all through the Pentagon. Tensions have been running high between China and the United States, as the two countries struggle to resolve the latest installment of the Taiwanese crisis. And China has had a run of unprecedented activity in space: the past two days have seen China launch four large missions into deep space, three within the last six hours.. Fortunately, a high-resolution American spy satellite will be over that second launch site within minutes, giving the US a unique ability to determine what is going on. But even though tasking orders are given to photograph the suspected launch site, none are returned. The satellite, code-named Crystal 3, no longer responds to commands. Within minutes, US Space Command reports that four NAVSTAR/GPS satellites—used to guide American drones and precision bombs—have stopped broadcasting. China’s space war against the United States has started.

Forden then gives a brief summary of his research and overall conclusion, which is that the fear of a single strike that could cripple America's satellite network--an outer space Pearl Harbor-- is unrealistic. The rest of Part One is devoted to analyzing China's successful anti-satellite test. Through a process of backtracking, scientists have reconstructed the collision of the missile and the satellite.

"By backtracking the debris to the point where they all converge, we can determine the two most important aspects of the Chinese ASAT: how China destroyed that satellite, and just how capable its satellite-killer really is." Based on the information gathered from backtracking, Forden concludes that the Chinese have accomplished a phenomenal feat. According to him, China "accomplished the most sophisticated of space maneuvers: a hit-to-kill interception, the equivalent of hitting a bullet with a bullet."

In Part Two, Forden argues that China does not have the ability to launch enough anti-satellite missiles to cripple the US armed forces. "The United States may be the country most dependent on space for its military activities. But it is also the least vulnerable, because of the tremendous redundancy of its space assets." He analyzes whether China could destroy deep-space navigation satellites, early warning satellites, communications satellites, and low altitude satellites, and he concludes that China just couldn't do enough damage to render the USA forces impotent. The sheer number of American military and civilian satellites is simply far more than the number of anti-satellite missiles China has at its disposal.

The most interesting aspect of Part Three is Forden's plea for countries to avoid space warfare. He points out that the destruction of any satellite in outer space will create debris fields that will continue to orbit the Earth, eventually damaging or destroying other satellites.

These debris fields could easily cause a run-away chain of collisions that renders space unusable -- for thousands of years, and for everyone. Not only is this a quickly growing and important sector of the world’s economy (sales of GPS receivers alone reportedly exceeds $20 billion annually), but space is also used for humanitarian missions such as forecasting floods in Bangladesh or droughts in Africa. We cannot allow space to be forever barred to our use for what turns out to be a very minor military advantage. If the military utility of attacks in space are so minor; if the active defense of space assets is impractical, counterproductive, and unnecessary; and if the danger resulting from the consequent debris affects all space-faring nations for thousands of years to come, it is clear that diplomacy is in every country's interest.

The first step the United States should take is a simple declaration that we guarantee the continued flow of information to any country whose satellite is destroyed by an ASAT. We could do this using either our military or civilian-owned satellites. After all, if the space assets of the United States are not vulnerable to attacks because of the inherent redundancy, the same cannot be said of China’s other potential regional competitors such as Australia, India, or Japan. Each of these countries has only a handful of satellites that could be quickly destroyed if China chooses to attack them. This declaration would effectively eliminate any military advantage that a country might get from attacking its neighbors limited fleet of satellites. After that, we should adopt the code of conduct that is being developed by the Stimson Center that establishes “rules of the road” for responsible space-faring nations. Finally, we should work toward a treaty banning the future testing of these most dangerous of anti-satellite weapons: the so-called "kinetic kill interceptors" that create such large amounts of debris. It'd be a first step towards containing the worst effects on war in space.

Forden's series of posts consider the worst possible scenarios and conclude that the American armed forces would still be effective. "And much like Japan’s failure to destroy the US carrier fleet, a Chinese attack on US satellites would fail to cripple our military, China’s strategic goal in launching a space war." However, Forden does not discuss the possible consequences of China synchronously launching a cyber attack on the US. It seems like that would make a significant difference in his analysis. Either way, his analysis of the space war situation is fascinating and certainly worth reading.

The article describes what is being called the Cold Rush, which is a rush to claim the billions of barrels of oil thought to be under the Arctic that have only become reachable since global warming has melted hundreds of thousands of miles of Arctic ice. Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the United States all have borders along the Arctic, and they have all been doing some saber rattling in regards to their claims of the Arctic black gold. For instance, in August, Russia was busily working to take possession of the Arctic Sea by planting a titanium Russian flag on the seabed underneath the Arctic Sea (see here), and Canada responded by shifting military forces into the Canadian Arctic (see here).

Julian Ku at the Opinio Juris blog argued that the issue of who has sovereignty over the Arctic Sea and its black gold should be resolved by reference to the Continental Shelf Commission and the International Seabed Authority pursuant to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty (UNCLOS), which gives countries the right to claim the continental shelf extending from their territory under the sea (see here). Russia and Canada are both parties to UNCLOS and the United States is not. According to Ku, this means that the US could not invoke UNCLOS to challenge Russian claims of sovereignty in the Arctic but Canada could.

In the Wired article, Joanne Gabrynowicz, an international space law expert and a contributing member of the Res Communis blog, is quoted as saying, "The seabed, high seas, Antarctica, and space are, as a matter of law, global commons. What happens in one can be argued to be legal precedent in the others."

She is undoubtedly correct in her conclusion, and since China, Japan, Russia, and the United States are all vying for a piece of the Moon in the near future, it is imperative that we pay attention to how the Arctic problem is resolved. The Wired article concludes with this somber thought:

It's been several hundred years since a virgin patch of Earth was successfully claimed by anyone. Now that we may be facing valuable unsullied territory again, it would be wise to come up with a better system. Do we really want to see a repeat of the Americas, colonial Africa, or the Middle East? "As I tell my students, when humans have a conflict there are only two options: to reach agreement or to fight," Gabrynowicz says. "Even agreeing to disagree or doing nothing simply puts these options further into the future; it does not create additional options. At the level of nations, these options are law or war."

One thing is for sure, international law is on the precipice of a major evolution. The major differences between the Arctic situation and the Moon can be seen in the type of treaties that have been signed. UNCLOS provides some form of dispute resolution, and even if the US is not a party to UNCLOS, it might still be considered customary international law (CIL). However, when we look to the Moon, the only treaty we have to really consider is the Outer Space Treaty (OST), which is devoid of any dispute resolution clauses-- it merely states that the moon is community property and not the exclusive property of any particular nation, and any benefits derived from outer space or the moon are to be reaped by all nations.

New precedents are also being set by litigation resulting from the war on terror, which are altering how the Courts interpret treaties and CIL. We might see a clever attorney asserting an argument from the Hamdan case in regards to CIL, arguing whether the US is even bound by UNCLOS. Moreover, unlike the Arctic Sea, the only nation to have ever planted a flag on the moon (yet) is the US. In theory, it can be argued that all nations share a border with the moon but the opposite argument that no nations share a border with the moon can be just as easily asserted. We also have to consider the effect of the new US space policy, which declares sovereignty over the entirety of outer space and celestial bodies.

Least to say, it will be fascinating to see what kind of arguments and precedents result from the Arctic Sea disputes and how those will be applied to the Moon. Although both fall under the doctrine of res communis, there are differences between the high seas and outer space, including the vast geopolitical consequences of dominance in space as compared to dominance on the high seas. The value of oil cannot be compared to the value of military dominance, and this is another reason that precedents being set during the war on terror will have an influence on how the US-- if not the entire world-- approaches the issue(s) of who owns the moon. Countries should be more proactive about how these issues should be resolved prior to making claims on the moon. Hopefully, as people in the know, we can be the catalyst encouraging new treaties and creating forums for dispute resolution.

November 08, 2007

A new bill in Congress could bring the US in line with the patent systems of other countries. If the Patent Reform Act of 2007 passes, then the US will cease to be a first-to-invent patent system and will become a first-to-file system like most of the other countries in the world.

When it comes to recognizing a creator’s right to a patent, most of the world has adopted the “first-to-file” rule. This means that the person or entity that files the patent first, is granted the patent without having to prove that they were the first to actually invent it. It was, as a former law school professor of mine used to say, “a race to the patent office door.” On the other hand, the United States has abided by the “first-to-invent” rule. This means that the patent applicant has to prove that it was he/she/it that was the first to invent the patentable item by being the first to reduce the patent’s underlying idea to a practice. Generally speaking, the first-to-file rule appeals to those who value efficiency in the often long patenting process. While those who value equity are proponents of the first-to-invent rule which seeks to reward the labor of the inventor.

Her post is an excellent read, and it briefly points out some of the implications the passage of this bill could have on space law and the general US practice of IP.

It seems to me that switching from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file patent system is like the US switching to the metric system. However, switching patent systems could have far greater implications than merely streamlining the systems between countries. It becomes a question of who should be rewarded? The first to invent or the first to get his patent to the trademark office? Apparently, the rest of the world appreciates efficiency over equity.

Well, a good lawyer could argue that there’s no such thing as space law. But I think there is, and it revolves around a unique set of international agreements and treaties that govern space. The master treaty — the grandfather — is commonly referred to as the Outer Space Treaty. It came into effect in 1967, at the height of the cold war, and basically reflected the concerns of the two superpowers at the time, the U.S. and the Soviet Union. One of the fundamental principles is that space should be used peacefully. The treaty states that no weapons of mass destruction can exist in space, and reflects the idea that space should be used for the benefit of mankind. It also says that no country can claim sovereignity in space, establishes an international system for the registration of space objects and creates principles governing responsibility and liability for problems that arise in space.

Liability in space? What does the treaty say?

Liability in space is really addressed by a convention that came later, called the Convention on Liability. What’s perhaps most interesting about it is that the signatory-nations all agree to be absolutely liable for damage to other nations resulting from space objects. So if a satellite falls from space and the U.S. has launched it, the U.S. government is ultimately responsible. There’s no other agreement that I’m aware of that has reached an arrangement like this on both government and privately-owned equipment.

Any other interesting treaties?

Well, there’s the treaty commonly known as the Moon Treaty. It’s only been ratified or signed by 17 states — the U.S. is not a party to it.

Really? We're not part of the Moon Treaty? Why not?

Basically because the Moon Treaty includes provisions which state that the resources of the Moon need to serve the “common heritage of mankind.” Right now, we haven’t gotten a ton of resources from the moon — the rocks from the Apollo mission are about all that come to mind. But if commercial resources were ever developed, proceeds would arguably have to be shared with other nations. There are a number of provisions in space treaties that aren’t exactly business friendly, and this is one of them.

So what do space lawyers do?

Right now, there’s really very little litigation going on. But there’s lots of entrepreneurial activity. So people making money in space law really are doing traditional commercial law. They’re doing FCC licenses and other issues related to satellites, such as getting clearances from the State department on export control. Space lawyers also handle bankruptcy cases. Then there’s a whole separate but related practice helping countries do joint projects with industry and governments.

October 24, 2007

The future of all transnational law is indisputably space law, and I urge anyone reading this to explore issues of space law. A good place to start would be the new blog Res Communis. It is written by four lawyers and researchers at The National Center for Remote Sensing, Air, and Space Law Center, which was founded in 1999 and is housed in the University of Mississippi Law School. The Center publishes the Journal of Space Law, which is the world’s oldest journal dedicated to the topic, and the only one in the United States. Their first couple of posts are very creative and extremely informative, covering everything from the vitality of the Outer Space Treaty to Space Money.

Also, check out the Space Law Probe, which claims to be "not for lawyers and space tourists only." The author Jesse Londin has been writing about space law issues since 2005, and this blog seems to cover everything, including Space Law Moot Court Competitions to brief expositions about moments in the history of space law like the launching of Sputnik.

And then there is the Space Politics blog, which has been around since 2004. It incisively covers what's going on in D.C. regarding the USA's space policies and agendas. If you're wondering how much money is being budgeted for getting to the moon these days or if you're curious about the future of human space flight in UK, then you're going to want to check out this blog. As its tagline states, "Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway..."

October 14, 2007

It is quite possible that the US has frittered away the last 35 years of space superiority, legitimately creating a bona fide fear on Capitol Hill of the US being shoved into second place by a new generation of challengers. The main challenger today is China, which continues to bolster its space programs while the US public and its representatives continue to lose interest.

Despite America's dependency on outer space, their interest in space continues to wane. Rep. Terry Everett (R-Ala.), a senior member of the House Armed Services, Intelligence and Agriculture Committee, said space is mostly an unsecured resource, and few Americans understand their dependency on it (see here). The dependency on outer space goes beyond military dependency and encompasses many modern conveniences such as weather reporting, global mapping, ATM machines, agricultural reports, global positioning systems, the trucking industry, communications, airlines, the scientific community and many other areas.

A NASA administrator recently stated that China may win the new space race. "I personally believe that China will be back on the moon before we are," said NASA Administrator Michael Griffin. "I think when that happens, Americans will not like it. But they will just have to not like it." China plans to send a probe to the moon by the end of the year, and by 2017 they have planned a robotic mission to return with moon rocks. The US plans to put men on the moon again by 2020 and it is unclear whether China can beat this deadline or if the US can meet this deadline.

Joan Johnson-Freese, head of the Naval War College's national security decision-making department, said the U.S. is "more technically advanced. We certainly could be back on the moon faster than the Chinese, but we don't have the political will and therefore the resources to do it."

While American interest in outer space declines, others are obviously taking a keen interest in outer space. Malaysia's first astronaut, Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor, flew in a Russian rocket to the international space station earlier this month. The orthopedic surgeon and university lecturer from Kuala Lumpur is the first Muslim to fly into space. Also aboard the flight was US astronaut Peggy Whitson. As of this mission, she is the first female commander of the space station. Although this flight seems to symbolize an era of international unity and cooperation, it is actually accompanied by acrimonious posturing amongst all of the players.

Russia recently lashed out at the US in response to reports concerning the US's intentions to place missiles in eastern European countries and to produce a new generation of missile defense shields similar to the 1980's "Star Wars" program (see here). The Russian Space Forces Commander Colonel-General Vladimir Popovkin said that no country had the right to declare itself the sole proprietor of outer space and strike forces should not be deployed there.

"We need to have strong rules about space, to avoid its militarization, and if any country will place a weapon in space, then our response will be the same," he said. The Russian commander's comments were directed at China as much as they were aimed at the US.

A year ago, the US enacted a new jingoistic space policy that basically declared outer space to be the 51st state of the Union. The US policy rejects future arms control deals that would limit US flexibility in space and asserts a right to reject access to space to any country considered hostile to the US. A few months later, China used a ballistic missile to shoot down one of its own weather satellites, making China the third country to ever successfully shoot down a satellite after the US and Russia. This demonstration caused major international concern that this would precipitate an outer space arms race (see here).

A treaty making outer space a weaponless sanctuary would benefit the US far more than it would benefit China. War strategists in China have recognized that the US's assets in outer space are the Achilles' heel of the US military. They have determined that the best way to defeat the US military is through anti-technology technology, spawning a number of space warfare programs, including the ominous sounding "Assassin's Mace" (Shashoujian).

The main idea of the "Assasin's Mace" is to blind and stun an attacker, providing China with enough time to launch an array of supersonic cruise missiles and "squall" rocket torpedoes, which are all meant to destroy aircraft carriers, while also launching unmanned combat aerial vehicles, which will fire anti-ship missiles at accompanying vessels within the aircraft carrier group before dive bombing into naval ships. China will blind its attacker(s) by disabling satellites and hacking into the computers of its opposition.

To do this, the Chinese will utilize various forms of anti-technology technology. They will use maneuverable "parasite" micro-satellites that have secretly attached themselves to vital radar and communication satellites. Also, they will use space mines that will move close to satellites and then detonate, and they will use ground-based anti-satellite lasers. To ensure that their attackers are sufficiently blinded, the Chinese will utilize hackers to disable enemy computer systems.

According to the Times, Sami Saydjari, who has been working on cyber defence systems for the Pentagon since the 1980s, told Congress in testimony on April 25 that a mass cyber attack could leave 70 per cent of the US without electrical power for six months.

All of this should be a signal to us, the American people, to wake up and demand that our representatives push for more money in all kinds of space programs. Outer space and the moon are rich in resources, and the military advantages of outer space cannot be denied. It is imperative that we become as interested in the space race today as we were a generation ago.

July 02, 2007

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has asked some science fiction writers for some assistance in... Well, in homeland security. The DHS was formed in response to the terrorist attacks on 9/11, which were events fairly similar to the suicide-747 attack on the US Capitol at the end of Tom Clancy's bestselling 1994 book Debt of Honor. The Illuminati board game, based on the bestselling novel The Illuminati by Robert Anton Wilson, has a card called "terrorist attack" which has a picture that is very similar to the World Trade Towers being hit by an airplane, and it was made in the eighties. It makes sense that if you you're looking for some original ideas about how to deal with the problems of tomorrow, then you might want to get the assistance of some of the world's more imaginative people.

An article about the DHS conference said that the science fiction writers were reluctant to give up their best ideas for no cash. Can you blame them? Some of their more helpful suggestions were material that becomes armor when struck by a bullet; an antibiotic that cures martyrdom; and a satellite that beams solar energy to earth. Apparently, the armor and the satellite are retreads but a cure for martyrdom was news to everyone except the people working psychological operations (however, it's a pretty good bet "martyrdom" is not caused by a bacterial infection and thus not susceptible to antibiotic treatment).

At a different conference, an Israeli futurologist was happy to divulge his thoughts about what the future may hold (see here). Dr. Yair Sharan, director of Tel Aviv University's Interdisciplinary Centre for Technology Analysis and Forecasting, predicted suicide bombers remote-controlled by brain-chip implants and carrying nano-technology cluster bombs or biological compounds for which there is no antidote. It's possible these were the kind of ideas the DHS was looking for when it brought together a group of sci-fi writers.

The sci-fi writers might not have given their best and freshest ideas at the conference, but it's certainly true that science fiction has sometimes predicted the course of technology a long time in advance. Robert Heinlein is a good example of this phenomenon since he described in his books future inventions such as cell phones and the internet. Science fiction writers have also contemplated future difficulties we will encounter in the law. For instance, Heinlein gives a lengthy discussion in his book Stranger in a Strange Land of property issues that will have to be dealt with in connection to who owns the moon or another planet. It is probably best that we all take some time to read some science fiction and consider the possible issues of tomorrow if for no other reason than to keep our imaginations limber.